View Full Version : Paging Al "Big Head" Gore


kaol
More evidence of the global warming hoax:


Inhofe Calls for EPA Probe of Scientists' Climate Change E-Mails

FOXNews.com

The Senate's top global warming skeptic on Tuesday said he will ask the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general to probe the use of climate change data now at the center of an international inquiry for an endangerment finding that gives the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases.



.The Senate's top global warming skeptic on Tuesday said he will ask the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general to probe the use of climate change data now at the center of an international inquiry for an endangerment finding that gives the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Sen James Inhofe, R-Okla., said EPA administrator Lisa Jackson's decision to rely on information from the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change to institute the endangerment finding is

"The EPA accepted the IPCC's erroneous claims wholesale, without doing its own independent review," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said about

"So EPA's endangerment finding rests on bad science," Inhofe said at a Tuesday morning hearing.

But appearing before Inhofe at the Senate Environment and Public Works hearing on the EPA's proposed 2011 budget, Jackson said the information under question "doesn't undermine our endangerment finding."

She also rebuffed Inhofe's call to ask the agency's inspector general to investigate the data, saying the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gasses are pollutants.

"They said the EPA must make a determination on whether or not greenhouse gases endanger welfare. Rather than ignore that obligation, I believe I had no choice but to follow the law of the land.

In a letter to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., sent Monday Jackson wrote that new greenhouse gas emission rules for "large stationary sources" will be delayed a year.

Inhofe is also considering a request to the Department of Justice for a probe of scientists who he claims deliberately falsified data used by climate change advocates.

House Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans released a 40-page report that was used by GOPers to ask Jackson how she can continue to advocate for new global warming regulations even as the findings by the IPCC and the work of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit in Britain create doubt about climate science.

"The CRU controversy features e-mails from the world's leading climate scientists -- e-mails that show disturbing practices contrary to the practice of objective science and potentially federal law," the report reads.

"The released CRU e-mails and documents display potentially unethical, and illegal, behavior," it continues. "Moreover, there are e-mails discussing unjustified changes to data by federal employees and federal grantees. These and other issues raise questions about the lawful use of federal funds and potential ethical misconduct."

Inhofe, whose family mocked Al Gore by building a snowman of the climate change advocate on the Capitol grounds earlier this month, said in a statement ahead of the hearing on the EPA's 2011 proposed budget that the minority staff's report covers e-mails and documents from 1996 through November 2009.

He said the research shows the world's leading climate scientists discussing obstruction of contrary data, manipulation of data, threats of journalists who questioned "consensus" on the data and activism to influence the political process.

"We knew they were cooking the science to support the flawed UN IPCC agenda," he said. "I suspect Climate-gate is only the beginning."

At the hearing, Inhofe also pressed Jackson to explain how her agency can press ahead with what he calls a "jobs-killing agenda" when Congress has not passed cap-and-trade legislation.

"How in the world can we justify doing something administratively that the Congress overwhelming rejected, saying defiantly we don't care what you do, Congress?"

bix
more evidence that you dont know what the word "evidence" means. :(

430CLK
First off, just because some red neck jackass senator calls for an inquiry, doesn't exactly invalidate global warming. If you were so concerned about the use/misuse of data, where the fuck were you when they were using false evidence to get us into the Iraq war? Your concern is touching.

These idiots amaze me - one late seasonal snowfall, or an extra coldspell in South Dakota reported by some meth'd up trucker and they think it invalidates global warming. According to National Wildlife Federation (the commie organization protecting wilderness), this January was the warmest January on record for the planet. And for Senator Shit-for-brains, warmer air brings unusually heavier snowstorms due to heavier, warmer air over the southern states colliding with bitter cold Canadian air masses.

qam1
First off, just because some red neck jackass senator calls for an inquiry, doesn't exactly invalidate global warming.

Well that and Climategate, Glaciergate, and all the other frauds exposed and of course the actual science.

If you were so concerned about the use/misuse of data, where the fuck were you when they were using false evidence to get us into the Iraq war? Your concern is touching.

Translation: Maybe if I bring up something unrelated maybe people will forget I fell for a fraud of a religion.

These idiots amaze me - one late seasonal snowfall, or an extra coldspell in South Dakota reported by some meth'd up trucker and they think it invalidates global warming.

Wasn't it Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth who claimed that the heat wave in 2003 was proof of Global Warming? Well using Al Gore's logic if a heat wave in 2003 was proof of global warming, then wouldn't record cold for a few years prove the opposite?

And for Senator Shit-for-brains, warmer air brings unusually heavier snowstorms due to heavier, warmer air over the southern states colliding with bitter cold Canadian air masses.

LOL!!!!!

That's funny how you just makes things up because back in 2002 and 2007 when we had lighter than normal winters that was because of Global Warming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d70iXVN5EVM&feature=player_embedded

Lighter snow it's global warming, Heavier year it's of course global warming, it's the perfect scam because it can never be disproven!!!!

Yes I know, it's embarrassing when some "meth'd up trucker" and a "Shit-for-brains" Senator realized Global Warming was a scam from the start while you got bamboozled!

430CLK
Translation: Maybe if I bring up something unrelated maybe people will forget I fell for a fraud of a religion.


No matter how many times it's brought up you never, ever answer the question, just relegate to the dustbin of history and hope everyone forgets the bloodlust boner you all sported when it started. Because you all were such pathetic sheep sucking on the tit of lies you hoped against hope were true, in the face of all evidence you can't even bring yourself to admit now how wrong you were (which is one of the staple characteristics of the right wing) - I'm waiting along with 5,000 dead Americans to hear your justification, Mr. Super Patriot. Answer the fucking question.

kaol
No matter how many times it's brought up you never, ever answer the question, just relegate to the dustbin of history and hope everyone forgets the bloodlust boner you all sported when it started. Because you all were such pathetic sheep sucking on the tit of lies you hoped against hope were true, in the face of all evidence you can't even bring yourself to admit now how wrong you were (which is one of the staple characteristics of the right wing) - I'm waiting along with 5,000 dead Americans to hear your justification, Mr. Super Patriot. Answer the fucking question.

Every topic with you defaults to the war in Iraq. Using vulgarity and coming back to the same point over and over again(especially when it does not pertain to the discussion at hand) does not lend further credence to your point. You hate Bush. Understood. I, personally, was not a big supporter of his in many ways-especially regarding financial policy.As far as not admitting you're wrong, take a good hard look at this administration- the O-Dog NEVER admits he's been wrong about anything, thus this foolish circus to pretend to be open minded about a major health care plan the public does not want.

kaol
Well that and Climategate, Glaciergate, and all the other frauds exposed and of course the actual science.



Translation: Maybe if I bring up something unrelated maybe people will forget I fell for a fraud of a religion.



Wasn't it Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth who claimed that the heat wave in 2003 was proof of Global Warming? Well using Al Gore's logic if a heat wave in 2003 was proof of global warming, then wouldn't record cold for a few years prove the opposite?



LOL!!!!!

That's funny how you just makes things up because back in 2002 and 2007 when we had lighter than normal winters that was because of Global Warming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d70iXVN5EVM&feature=player_embedded

Lighter snow it's global warming, Heavier year it's of course global warming, it's the perfect scam because it can never be disproven!!!!

Yes I know, it's embarrassing when some "meth'd up trucker" and a "Shit-for-brains" Senator realized Global Warming was a scam from the start while you got bamboozled!

:thumbsup:

Peebs
Every topic with you defaults to the war in Iraq. Using vulgarity and coming back to the same point over and over again(especially when it does not pertain to the discussion at hand) does not lend further credence to your point. You hate Bush. Understood. I, personally, was not a big supporter of his in many ways-especially regarding financial policy.As far as not admitting you're wrong, take a good hard look at this administration- the O-Dog NEVER admits he's been wrong about anything, thus this foolish circus to pretend to be open minded about a major health care plan the public does not want.
and you can't resist the little slightly racist under-handed euphemism type names for Pres Obama, can you??
Explain what "O-dog" means please. I am sure 85% of this board would be so interested in your explaination.
Reference to Sen-dog or Snoop-dog? African american Rappers?
so in what you think is a under handed way....

also outside of your tea bagging wingnuts, how does 56% of americans who want Healthcare reform translate into "the public does not want"???
(psssssssssssssssst here's a hint........56 is more than half)

Am I right??

kaol
and you can't resist the little slightly racist under-handed euphemism type names for Pres Obama, can you??
Explain what "O-dog" means please. I am sure 85% of this board would be so interested in your explaination.
Reference to Sen-dog or Snoop-dog? African american Rappers?
so in what you think is a under handed way....

also outside of your tea bagging wingnuts, how does 56% of americans who want Healthcare reform translate into "the public does not want"???
(psssssssssssssssst here's a hint........56 is more than half)

Am I right??

Get real, wake up, and stop taking out your life's frustrations out on this board. O-Dog? Well, he wants to be hip so here you go. He cannot effectively govern, only campaign, so it's like an MTV ad everytime he speaks.

kaol
and you can't resist the little slightly racist under-handed euphemism type names for Pres Obama, can you??
Explain what "O-dog" means please. I am sure 85% of this board would be so interested in your explaination.
Reference to Sen-dog or Snoop-dog? African american Rappers?
so in what you think is a under handed way....

also outside of your tea bagging wingnuts, how does 56% of americans who want Healthcare reform translate into "the public does not want"???
(psssssssssssssssst here's a hint........56 is more than half)

Am I right??

Oh, and by the way YOU are racist!

Peebs
Really?? Bwahahahaha that's some of the funniest shit I think I have ever read on this board.
No really.
You slay me.
Stop.
:lol:

You have what you preceive as these little cute euphemism for the President, either giving him a hip hop handle or using his middle name to make it seem like he's islamic. You think it's suddle...but it's louder than a 747 at JFK.

And I certainly don't even have any frustration let alone one to take out :lol: Don't you have a teabagging meeting to go to?
But before you go out a teabaggin you still haven't even HINTED at the 56%. Again you make a statement with no back up. Show me a gallop poll of these so called American's against HCR. Not some tea bagging wingnut blog...a honest to goodness unbiased scientific POLL.

tarheel
If 56% of Americans were for the kind of healthcare reform being touted in both houses of Congress, it would have passed with flying colors by now. 60 "D" votes in the Senate before Brown and nothing accomplished. And even then Obama got off track by offering all kinds of sweetheart deals to Louisiana and Nebraska to try to get through something that 56% of us favored?

Scott Brown campaigned and won in the most liberal state in the Union on the fact that he would vote AGAINST the kind of healthcare bills bandied about in Washington. I think that speaks more directly to what's happening in that arena than some 56% favoring some kind of vague change.

tigger
Scott Brown campaigned and won in the most liberal state in the Union on the fact that he would vote AGAINST the kind of healthcare bills bandied about in Washington. I think that speaks more directly to what's happening in that arena than some 56% favoring some kind of vague change.
Using Healthcare as the reason he won is silly, since MA already has a statewide healthcare program so doesn't need to be concerned about a national one.

He won because his opponent was an idiot.

Back to Al Gore:

http://cagle.com/news/Snow2010/images/britt.jpg

http://cagle.com/news/Snow2010/images/streeter.jpg